NIPC Law

After the party comes the bill. In this final episode of the Media CAT saga ( Media CAT v Adams No, 4 [2011] EPC 10) His Honour Judge Birss QC decided who was to pay for episodes 1 , 2 and 3 . Or, to be more accurate, whether the solicitors who brought this litigation and their principal Andrew Crossley , should pay for them under s.51 (6) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 , This sub-section provides: "In any proceedings mentioned in subsection (1), the court may disallow, or (as the case may be) order the legal or other representative concerned to meet, the whole of any wasted costs or such part of them as may be determined in accordance with rules of court." The proceedings mentioned in s.51 (1) are proceedings in the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal, the High Court and any county court. Wasted costs are defined by s.51 (7) as "any costs incurred by a party— (a) as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of any legal or ot...

I mentioned this litigation on the 12 and 21 Dec 2010 . In my latter case note I reported that the judge had found claims by Media CAT Ltd. against 27 defendants and listed them to come on before him on 17 January 2011. I advised those defendants to take legal advice and if possible appear by counsel and that is precisely what most of them did. Shortly before the 17 the claimant's solicitor tried to discontinue the claims against the defendants and vacate the hearing making clear that he intended to reissue the proceedings. The judge appears to have raised of his own motion the question whether the court's permission would be required for discontinuance and asked whether any step could be taken in the litigation without the consent of the copyright owner. The defendants' counsel indicated that they would be seeking wasted costs against the claimant's solicitors. The only thing that saved those solicitors from being ordered to show cause there and then was that their c...

I am grateful to Mr John Rogers for bringing Media CAT Ltd. v Billington [2010] EWPCC 18 (17 Dec 2010) to my attention. It appears that Judge Birss QC and his clerk reviewed all the cases in his list and found 13 more that had been brought by Media CAT in September and October plus another 14 in November. All involve similar issues to the cases I mentioned in my case note of 12 Dec 2010. Many of them consist only of a claim form and particulars of claim . At least one defendant seems not to be without a response pack. The judge has listed all those cases for directions at a hearing to take place on 17 Jan 2011 of his own motion under CPR 3.3 (1) and (4). II should be interested to know what Media CAT's solicitors have to say about it. The Bar provides pro bono advice and representation through the Bar Pro Bono Unit . Anyone affected should have a word with his local CAB, law centre or MP first. I am sure most IP chambers would be glad to take referrals from the Unit. We certa...

I n Media C.A.T. Ltd. v A and others [2010] EWPCC 17, His Honour Judge Birss QC had 8 requests for judgment. The particulars of claim in each case alleged that: "The defendant, someone authorised by him to use his internet connection, or someone who gained access to the defendant's internet connection due to the router to that connections having no or no adequate security was at all material times a user of the peer-to-peer file sharing software known as BitTorrent 6.1.2 which allows the user to share digital media content files on a network with other users." The relief sought in the requests for judgment included "a permanent injunction pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court; ordering the defendant to take reasonable steps to safeguard their internet connection being used, either through the defendant's personal computer and/or third parties taking advantage of the defendant's unsecured wireless connection to repeat the infringement of the clai...